SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

[unofan]

Seeing any trends? Lurch to the Right? Full on theocracy? Asking for a friend.

These were all fairly minor - a couple of related immigration cases, an international arbitration case, a habeas one, and a criminal case that implicated tribal rights.

Nothing stood out except for Gorsuch's dissent voicing his long standing support for tribal rights. It's a wierd niche of his.

I mean, it's apparent the Court is shifting right, but we won't know how much until the major cases come out.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

It’s clear gorsuch feels need to try and protect natives. Just wish it also extended to other humans

[burd]

These were all fairly minor - a couple of related immigration cases, an international arbitration case, a habeas one, and a criminal case that implicated tribal rights.

Nothing stood out except for Gorsuch's dissent voicing his long standing support for tribal rights. It's a wierd niche of his.

I mean, it's apparent the Court is shifting right, but we won't know how much until the major cases come out.

Is he about tribal rights v. federal the way many Rs are about states' rights v. federal?

Indian law is fascinating stuff. Tragic and shameful, but fascinating.

[Kepler]

Is he about tribal rights v. federal the way many Rs are about states' rights v. federal?

Near as I can tell it's just his thing.

Like Scalia has a sane spot for privacy.

Even monsters have their moments.

[unofan]

3 more out this morning with at least 1 more to come. Still minor stuff, though in another tribal case Gorsuch was able to bring Barrett with him for a 5-4 ruling in favor of the tribe.

[unofan]

4th one out, still at least one more to come. Still nothing major.

[ScoobyDoo]

Why are they holding back the abortion ruling?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Why are they holding back the abortion ruling?

Perhaps they're planning to drop that one on Friday at 5pm?

[unofan]

5th one out. Still at least one more to come today. Still nothing major.

[unofan]

Why are they holding back the abortion ruling?

Short answer, only they know.

Long answer, i don't think anything untoward is going on there. But for the leak, we'd have expected it to come out near the end of the term. The fact that an early draft was leaked shouldn't change that expectation.

[unofan]

Perhaps they're planning to drop that one on Friday at 5pm?

Next opinion day is next Tuesday (Monday being a federal holiday).

[unofan]

6th and final one of the day is out. Nothing major, other than the last case that was dismissed as improvidently granted involved a bunch of R states trying to intervene to defend a Trump decision after Biden's administration declined to do so.

[unofan]

Out of the 18 left to decide, I'd characterize these as the major ones left:

NY Rifle: gun control
Dobbs: abortion
Kennedy: religion in public schools
Biden v Texas: remain in Mexico policy

Could be major depending on ruling:
Carson: tuition assistance for religious schools
WVa v EPA: scope of agency power
Berger: Right of legislators to intervene in court cases

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Ok, is this true? SC may overturn Miranda? First I’ve heard
https://twitter.com/dlcc/status/1537...GVWvSDkna9AvlA

[unofan]

Ok, is this true? SC may overturn Miranda? First I’ve heard
https://twitter.com/dlcc/status/1537...GVWvSDkna9AvlA

It's a gross exaggeration of what is likely or what the Court is actually poised to do. Could the Court rule so broadly? Sure, in so much as anytime there's a case involving one is the Miranda rights there's a chance it could nullify them.

But realistically, the case was about whether a person can bring a 1983 action against a cop when the only alleged violation was not Mirandizing them and the resulting confession was used to help convict them. The Court, including Sotomayor and Kagan, seemed united that was not enough to support a 1983 action, since the there are intervening causes of the harm there - the prosecutor had to introduce it, the judge had to allow it, your own attorney may or may not have failed to try to suppress it, the jury had to believe it, etc - and you can't prove the cop's actions legally caused the harm to you fire purposes of a resulting civil case.

In any event, nothing about the case suggested Miranda would disappear as a staple in criminal cases.